"Linux has a large amount of device drivers for hardware not supported on FreeBSD, especially USB devices. Not rarely, such drivers have been written based on information derived by protocol sniffing, reverse engineering and the like. This makes the code highly undocumented, and renders the porting effort extremely error prone. To help with this task, I decided to start working on an emulation layer that would let us recompile the linux source code on FreeBSD, and provide a sufficiently complete emulation of the kernel APIs so that device drivers (or at least certain classes) could be used without modifications to their source code."

Everything. List all the bad things for Open Source and Free Software and BSD's as it.

"With the BSDL, it seems to be similar."

No , because in a true scientific environment , you dont get locked out of scientific data or from the improvment or derivative made to/from it.

"As far as I understood"

That's the problem , you claim to understand but you jump to other points and avoid point I make and take the discussion in another direction to avoid them directly. Your not honest in your discussion.

Yes, it's possible and explicitely allowed by the BSDL. See the many projects using the BSDL and being free - they don't close code.

May I ask you if you're coming from a capitalistic oriented country? If not, maybe you're not understanding that exactly this freedom (of closing code) is neccessary to get market share? The term "market share" is always used to proof why one product is good (has a high market share) and another product is bad (has a low market share). Isn't this what capitalists want?

And about switching to other licenses: That's not true. Code that is BSDL will stay BSDL. If I use it, I have to include the BSDL's text in my documentation. I may release my software (the parts I've written myself) under the BSDL or under the GPL. I may also *not* release my source code. I may use BSDL code included into a commercial project as long as I follow the BSDL's instructions.

"List all the bad things for Open Source and Free Software and BSD's as it."

I think I don't understand you.

"No , because in a true scientific environment , you dont get locked out of scientific data or from the improvment or derivative made to/from it."

In science, in academia, you're usually locked in with some old fashioned MICROS~1 products. This goes for programs and for data.

I may tell you that everyone serious uses standardized and free data storage systems such as XML so there's no chance for getting locked in with the data created. To give you an example: I implemented a simple test analysis tool for the SCL-90-R checklist which runs on FreeBSD. Input data and result data are stored as a text file so I can use it anywhere I want. Anyone else can, too. But I don't see it's neccessary to release the program's source scl90r.c because it's dirty coded, it's in german only and anyone else may only work with it if he has bought the original test before in order to use the program legally (which costs some money). I don't want to bother anyone just because I'm to lazy to evaluate test by hand, just because the BSDL allows me to do so. :-)

"That's the problem , you claim to understand but you jump to other points and avoid point I make and take the discussion in another direction to avoid them directly. Your not honest in your discussion."

Maybe it seems to you to be this way. Maybe because english is my third foreign language and it surely is not your native language. It's hard to figure out what you want to tell exactly, so maybe I misunderstood you. I have to admit that I don't get your points because you don't elaborate at them in a way that it's clear to understand.

Ok , so your telling me that in those words : "You are allowed to close the code and switch its license at your own free will is granted by the BSD " , is part of the bsd , no , sorry , they ( those exact word ) dont exist. Your granting yourself right that are not given by the BSD protection clause.

Im from CANADA ...

If BSD where primarely capitalist , paying to use it the most money possible would be its primary goal. Its primary goal is *Usage*. Witch is defeated by the special right some people have granted themself by closing there derivative and switching license , two actions that are not covered or dare I say permited under the BSD's.

"Isn't this what capitalists want?"

No , all capitalist care about is making the most money , you can have 5% market share but if people pay more and you make more money then the rest of the other people making up that 95% market share the capitalist want that.

"And about switching to other licenses: That's not true. "

Look if its not true then port the BSD based software and driver inside Apple and Microsoft and other closed system to all the BSD ... Denying reality lead you nowhere.

"I think I don't understand you."

No , I know your beeing decptive , about your undertsanding.

"In science, in academia, you're usually locked in "

No in true science and true academia your not locked in. Now Science and academia have become more commercial this days , but its not really a good thing.

"Maybe it seems to you to be this way. Maybe because english is my third foreign language and it surely is not your native language. It's hard to figure out what you want to tell exactly, so maybe I misunderstood you."

No , language is not the problem and you certainly look like you mastered it enough to grasp what I am talking about.

"I have to admit that I don't get your points because you don't elaborate at them in a way that it's clear to understand."

No I elaborate , you just decided that what I say is wrong and false. witch is not the case at all. You take the good side of BSD only , where I speak of its bad side , witch you have decided dont exist and is false.